DOCSLIB.ORG

Texas Parks & Wildllife Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Texas Parks & Wildllife Department FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR VOLUNTARY PUBLIC ACCESS HABITAT INCENTIVE PROGRAM STATE OF TEXAS United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency October 13, 2011 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program State of Texas October 2011 Introduction The United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency proposes to implement a new program authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) in the State of Texas. The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA- HIP) provides grants to State and tribal governments to encourage owners and operators of privately-held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make that land available for access by the public for wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, and other compatible recreation and to improve fish and wildlife habitat on their land. The VPA-HIP is administered by the State or tribal government that receives the grant funds. The State of Texas, through Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), proposes to use VPA-HIP grant funds to expand its existing public access programs to provide the public with more opportunities to hunt, fish, watch wildlife, enjoy other recreation, and to improve wildlife habitat on private lands. TPWD works closely with landowners who voluntarily participate in three existing private-land access programs: Walk-In Hunts (WIH), Private Lands Drawn Hunts (PLDH) and Waterway Access Easement (WAE). These programs provide private landowners with habitat improvements, financial incentives and technical assistance in exchange for public access to their lands and adjoining public waters. To date these programs have opened more than 80,000 acres of private land to the public in Texas. These successful programs also increase awareness about the importance of private lands for individuals who hunt, fish, and enjoy wildlife-related recreation and help motivate landowners to conserve wildlife species. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is the Proposed Action which consists of three main components: (1) expand the WIH program by 50% to over 120,000 acres; (2) double the number of current landowner agreements in the PLDH program; and (3) acquire 3 new river access points in the WAE program. Reasons for Finding of No Significant Impact In consideration of the analysis documented in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) and in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations 1508.27, the preferred alternative would not constitute a major State or Federal action affecting the human and natural environment. Therefore, this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared and an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. This determination is based on the following: 1. Long-term beneficial impacts and short-term localized impacts would occur with the preferred alternative. Neither of these impacts would be considered significant. 2. The preferred alternative would not affect public health or safety. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area (cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and ecologically critical areas) would be preserved with implementation of the preferred alternative. 4. The potential impacts on the quality of the human environment are not considered highly controversial. 5. The potential impacts on the human environment as described in the Programmatic EA are not uncertain nor do they involve unique or unknown risks. 6. The preferred alternative would not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. 7. Cumulative impacts of the preferred alternative in combination with other recent, ongoing, or foreseeable future actions are not expected to be significant. 8. The preferred alternative would not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 9. The preferred alternative would have long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife and their habitats, including endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 10. The preferred alternative does not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law imposed for the protection of the environment. Determination On the basis of the analysis and information contained in the Programmatic EA and FONSI, it is my determination that adoption of the preferred alternative does not constitute a major Federal action affecting the quality of the human and natural environment. Barring any new data identified during the public and agency review of the Final Programmatic EA that would dramatically change the analysis presented in the EA or identification of a significant controversial issue, the Programmatic EA and this FONSI are considered final 30 days after date of approval signature. Signature: Date: October 13, 2011 Cover Sheet Proposed Action: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the State of Texas have agreed to implement a new Voluntary Public Access – Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP). USDA is provided the statutory authority by the provisions of the Food Security Act of 2008, and the Regulations at 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1410. VPA-HIP provides grants to State and tribal governments to encourage owners and operators of privately-held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make that land available for access by the public for wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, and other compatible recreation and to improve fish and wildlife habitat on their land. The VPA-HIP is administered by the State or tribal government that receives the grant funds. Type of Document: Programmatic Environmental Assessment Lead Agency: USDA, FSA Sponsoring Agency: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Cooperating None Agency: Comments: This Programmatic Environmental Assessment was prepared in accordance with USDA FSA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation procedures found in 7 CFR 799, as well as the NEPA of 1969, Public Law 91190, 42 United States Code 4321-4347, 1 January 1970, as amended. A Notice of Availability was released on September 7, 2011 announcing a 30-day comment period. Comments will be accepted until October 14, 2011. A copy of the document can be found on the TPWD website at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/20 1110_vpa-hip.phtml Comments may be submitted via e-mail to: [email protected] Or via mail to the following address: Linda Campbell VPA-HIP PEA Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency proposes to implement a new program authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) in the State of Texas. The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA- HIP) provides grants to State and tribal governments to encourage owners and operators of privately-held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make that land available for access by the public for wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, and other compatible recreation and to improve fish and wildlife habitat on their land. The VPA-HIP is administered by the State or tribal government that receives the grant funds. The State of Texas, through Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), proposes to use VPA-HIP grant funds to expand its existing public access programs to provide the public with more opportunities to hunt, fish, watch wildlife, enjoy other recreation, and to improve wildlife habitat on private lands. TPWD works closely with landowners who voluntarily participate in four existing private-land access programs: Waterway Access Easement (WAE), Private Lands Drawn Hunts (PLDH), and Walk-In Hunts (WIH). These programs provide financial incentives and the opportunity to work with state employed biologists for private landowners to allow public access to their lands as well as improve wildlife habitat. These programs have opened more than 80,000 acres of private land to the public in Texas. Type of public access can vary depending on the specific program. These successful programs also increase awareness about the importance of private lands for individuals who hunt, fish, and enjoy wildlife-related recreation and help motivate landowners to conserve wildlife species. Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of three main components: (1) expand the WIH program by 50% to over 120,000 acres; (2) double the number of current landowner agreements in the PLDH program; and (3) acquire 3 new river access points for the WAE program. Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to use VPA-HIP grant funds to increase public access and improve wildlife habitat on private farms, ranches, and forest land in the state of Texas. The need for the Proposed Action is to: increase the value realized by private landowners for wildlife populations inhabiting their property; increase the types and amounts of public access on qualified private land; and promote wildlife habitat restoration and improvement of watershed conditions on private properties. Environmental Consequences This Programmatic Environmental Assessment has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental consequences associated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
    Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan March 2008 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan BEXAR COUNTY KARST INVERTEBRATES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2008 Approved: ___DRAFT_______________________________________ Regional Director, Southwest Region Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concur: __DRAFT____________________________________________ Executive Director Date Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ii Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that the best available science indicates are necessary to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only. Identification of an action to be implemented by any private or public party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Nellie's Cory Cactus and Davis's Green Pitaya Draft Recovery Plan Amendments, April 2019
    Peer Review Plan Draft Amendments to the Recovery Plans for Escobaria minima (Syn. Coryphantha minima) (Nellie’s Cory Cactus) and Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii (Davis’s Green Pitaya). About the Document(s) Titles: Recovery Plan for Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii (Houghton) W.T. Marshall (Davis’s Green Pitaya), Draft Amendment 1; Recovery Plan for Escobaria minima (Baird) D.R. Hunt (Syn. Coryphantha minima Baird) (Nellie’s Cory Cactus), Draft Amendment 1. Estimated Dissemination Date for Peer Review: April, 2019 Purpose: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has identified best available information that indicates the need to amend recovery criteria for Escobaria minima (Syn. Coryphantha minima) (Nellie’s Cory Cactus) and Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii (Davis’s Green Pitaya). In this proposed modification, we evaluate the existing recovery criteria, show amended recovery criteria, and provide the rationale supporting the proposed recovery plan modification. Once finalized, the modifications will be an addendum that supplements the recovery plans, superseding only the affected recovery criteria from the previous recovery plan version. About the Peer Review Process Type of Review: Influential Timeline for Peer Review: Peer review of the draft amendments will be concurrent with the public comment period (30 days) that is identified in a Federal Register Notice of Availability. Reviewers: The Service will solicit reviews from at least three independent scientific reviewers with expertise in fields related to rare plant conservation. Reviewers will be selected based upon the following criteria: • Expertise: Reviewers have knowledge and expertise in the conservation and management of rare cactus species, plant genetics, or the flora of Brewster County.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report Water System Improvements
    Environmental Report (ER) Village of Vinton Proposed Water System Improvements August 10, 2012 Prepared by Souder, Miller & Associates 401 North Seventeenth Street, Suite 4 Las Cruces, NM 88005 (575) 647-0799 www.soudermiller.com Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 1.0 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 1 2.0 Alternatives Considered ..........................................................................................................3 2.1 Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Alternative B – Installation of Waterline and Appurtenances (Recommended) .......... 3 3.0 Affected Environment / Environmental Consequences........................................................4 3.1 Land Use/Important Farmland/Formally Classified Lands ........................................... 4 3.2 Floodplains........................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    1 Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) Jaclyn Lopez (CA Bar No. 258589) 2 Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, Suite 600 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 436-9682 4 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Collette L. Adkins Giese (MN Bar No. 035059X)* Center for Biological Diversity 8640 Coral Sea Street Northeast 7 Minneapolis, MN 55449-5600 Tel: (651) 955-3821 8 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 9 Michael W. Graf (CA Bar No. 136172) 10 Law Offices 227 Behrens Street 11 El Cerrito, CA 94530 Tel: (510) 525-7222 12 Fax: (510) 525-1208 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and 14 Pesticide Action Network North America *Seeking admission pro hac vice 15 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 20 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) 21 DIVERSITY, a non-profit organization; and ) Case No.__________________ PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ) 22 NORTH AMERICA, a non-profit ) organization; ) 23 ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 24 ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. ) 25 ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) 26 AGENCY; and LISA JACKSON, ) Administrator, U.S. EPA; ) 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 _____________________________________ ) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This action challenges the failure of Defendants Environmental Protection Agency and 3 Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, (collectively “EPA”) to consult with the 4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) 5 (collectively “Service”) pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Journal L316
    Official Journal L 316 of the European Union ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Volume 59 English edition Legislation 23 November 2016 Contents II Non-legislative acts REGULATIONS ★ Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/2029 of 10 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein ........................................................................................................................... 1 Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period. EN The titles of all other acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. EN 23.11.2016 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 316/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2016/2029 of 10 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), and in particular Article 19(5) thereof, Whereas: (1) Regulation (EC) No 338/97 lists animal and plant species in respect of which trade is restricted or controlled. Those lists incorporate the lists set out in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘the Convention’). They also incorporate other species the conservation status of which requires that trade from, into and within the Union is regulated or monitored.
    [Show full text]
  • ASHY DOGWEED (Thymophylla [=Dyssodia] Tephroleuca)
    ASHY DOGWEED (Thymophylla [=Dyssodia] tephroleuca) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photograph: Chris Best, USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office Corpus Christi, Texas September 2011 1 FIVE YEAR REVIEW Ashy dogweed/Thymophylla tephroleuca Blake 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: Southwest Regional Office, Region 2 Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Threatened and Endangered Species, 505-248-6641 Wendy Brown, Endangered Species Recovery Coordinator, 505-248-6664 Julie McIntyre, Recovery Biologist, 505-248-6507 Lead Field Office: Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office Robyn Cobb, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 361- 994-9005, ext. 241 Amber Miller, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 361-994-9005, ext. 247 Cooperating Field Office: Austin Ecological Services Field Office Chris Best, Texas State Botanist, 512- 490-0057, ext. 225 1.2 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species once every five years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • PC20 Doc. 16.3 Annex 2
    PC20 Doc. 16.3 Annex 2 ASSESSMENT OF TRADE IN EPIPHYTIC CACTI AND REVIEW OF LISTING OF CACTACEAE SPP. IN APPENDIX II 1. This document has been prepared by Mr James Grogan under contract with the CITES Secretariat.1 2. Background information can be found in two key CITES documents: CoP15 Doc. 55, submitted by the Management Authority of Switzerland, describes the issue under consideration in this report, whether certain genera of epiphytic cacti (seven as listed below) should be excluded from Appendix II based on the preponderance of artificially propagated compared to wild- collected specimens in international trade; IUCN Red List conservation status is reviewed, and trade data for gross exports of wild-collected specimens from range nations during 1975–2008 are presented; PC19 Doc. 14.1, prepared by the Chair of the Working Group on the Periodic Review with assistance from the Scientific Authority of Mexico, presents further analysis of trade data during 1998–2008 including the number of specimens of epiphytic cacti in trade that were artificially propagated, number of records and specimens that were wild collected, confiscated or seized, or of unknown origin during this period, and geographic ranges of species in question. Natural range, morphology & taxonomy of the epiphytic cacti 3. The Cactaceae are a New World family except for one species, the epiphytic Rhipsalis baccifera, which is also found in Africa, Madagascar and as far east as Sri Lanka. Seven genera are considered here: Disocactus, Epiphyllum, Hatiora, Lepismium, PseudoRhipsalis, Rhipsalis, and Schlumbergera. 4. These genera are grouped in two tribes of the subfamily Cactoideae within the Cactaceae family: Hylocereeae: Disocactus, Epiphyllum, PseudoRhipsalis Rhipsalideae: Hatiora, Lepismium, Rhipsalis, Schlumbergera 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Karst Invertebrates Taxonomy
    Endangered Karst Invertebrate Taxonomy of Central Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Rd. Suite #200 Austin, TX 78758 Original date: July 28, 2011 Revised on: April 4, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ENDANGERED KARST INVERTEBRATE TAXONOMY ................................................. 1 2.1 Batrisodes texanus (Coffin Cave mold beetle) ......................................................................... 2 2.2 Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes mold beetle) .................................................................................. 3 2.3 Cicurina baronia (Robber Baron Cave meshweaver) ............................................................... 4 2.4 Cicurina madla (Madla Cave meshweaver) .............................................................................. 5 2.5 Cicurina venii (Braken Bat Cave meshweaver) ........................................................................ 6 2.6 Cicurina vespera (Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver) ............................................. 7 2.7 Neoleptoneta microps (Government Canyon Bat Cave spider) ................................................ 8 2.8 Neoleptoneta myopica (Tooth Cave spider) .............................................................................. 9 2.9 Rhadine exilis (no common name) .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Araneae (Spider) Photos
    Araneae (Spider) Photos Araneae (Spiders) About Information on: Spider Photos of Links to WWW Spiders Spiders of North America Relationships Spider Groups Spider Resources -- An Identification Manual About Spiders As in the other arachnid orders, appendage specialization is very important in the evolution of spiders. In spiders the five pairs of appendages of the prosoma (one of the two main body sections) that follow the chelicerae are the pedipalps followed by four pairs of walking legs. The pedipalps are modified to serve as mating organs by mature male spiders. These modifications are often very complicated and differences in their structure are important characteristics used by araneologists in the classification of spiders. Pedipalps in female spiders are structurally much simpler and are used for sensing, manipulating food and sometimes in locomotion. It is relatively easy to tell mature or nearly mature males from female spiders (at least in most groups) by looking at the pedipalps -- in females they look like functional but small legs while in males the ends tend to be enlarged, often greatly so. In young spiders these differences are not evident. There are also appendages on the opisthosoma (the rear body section, the one with no walking legs) the best known being the spinnerets. In the first spiders there were four pairs of spinnerets. Living spiders may have four e.g., (liphistiomorph spiders) or three pairs (e.g., mygalomorph and ecribellate araneomorphs) or three paris of spinnerets and a silk spinning plate called a cribellum (the earliest and many extant araneomorph spiders). Spinnerets' history as appendages is suggested in part by their being projections away from the opisthosoma and the fact that they may retain muscles for movement Much of the success of spiders traces directly to their extensive use of silk and poison.
    [Show full text]
  • Davis's Green Pitaya Echinocereus Viridiflorus Var. Davisii Houghton
    Davis’s Green Pitaya Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii Houghton And Nellie’s Cory Cactus Escobaria minima (Baird) D.R. Hunt (Syn. Coryphantha minima Baird) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office Austin, Texas 5-YEAR REVIEW Davis’s Green Pitaya / Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii Houghton Nellie’s Cory Cactus / Escobaria minima (Baird) D.R. Hunt (Syn. Coryphantha minima Baird) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: Southwest Regional Office (Region 2) Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Threatened and Endangered Species, (505) 248-6641 Wendy Brown, Recovery Coordinator, (505) 248-6664 Julie McIntyre, Regional Recovery Biologist, (505) 248-6663 Lead Field Office: Austin Ecological Services Field Office Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, (512) 490-0057 x 248 Chris Best, Texas State Botanist, (512) 490-0057 x 225 1.2 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required under section 4(c)(2) of the endangered Species Act (ESA) to conduct a status review of each listed species once every 5 years. The purpose of five-year reviews is to evaluate whether or not a species’ status has changed since it was listed, or since completion of the most recent 5-year review. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. In the 5-year review, we first review the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, focusing on any new information obtained since the species was listed or last reviewed.
    [Show full text]